Only a few men can be rich. Only the few can be great athletes. Only the few will ever master quantum physics. And this is a statistical law.

Similarly, only the few can move towards a more objective understanding of the world. It can be done, but the difficulty involved ensures that only a few will ever succeed, just as in the more trivial examples above.

Atreyu wrote:Only a few men can be rich. Only the few can be great athletes. Only the few will ever master quantum physics. And this is a statistical law.

Similarly, only the few can move towards a more objective understanding of the world. It can be done, but the difficulty involved ensures that only a few will ever succeed, just as in the more trivial examples above.

So you view psychology to be related to "a more objective understanding of the world" then?

Certainly that is what eliminativst neurobiologists will say are up to.

Atreyu wrote:Only a few men can be rich. Only the few can be great athletes. Only the few will ever master quantum physics. And this is a statistical law.

Similarly, only the few can move towards a more objective understanding of the world. It can be done, but the difficulty involved ensures that only a few will ever succeed, just as in the more trivial examples above.

Yes, everything knowable is relative, but this is not at issue. What is is the idea that you are essentially comparing [let's use something like the, Intelligence Quotient, as an example] somebody with an IQ of 2 with another with an IQ of 4. Yes, the later is "more intelligent," but that makes virtually no difference.

The same logic would apply to those who have a "more objective understanding" of the world, e.g., the astrophysicist whom believe s/he has a more complete understanding of universal forces than does the average Joe.

The human mind is simply incapable of understand much of anything [and thank God for small favors!]. Imagine the havoc mankind might unleash on this poor planet if He was actually able to figure things out!

Chili wrote: So you view psychology to be related to "a more objective understanding of the world" then?

Well, of course. All branches of science should move us towards a more objective understanding of things. And psychology is the most important branch of all in this respect. If one cannot be objective about oneself, how can one be more objective about the world in general?

Chili wrote: Certainly that is what eliminativst neurobiologists will say are up to.

Yes, but one cannot be nearly as objective by studying physiology as one could be by studying psychology. Psychology is the study of the most basic tools (his own cognitive/perceptive apparatus) that the neurologist is using in his own particular studies.